Pentagon June 2021 Report on 120+ UAP Incidents

MclachlanM

Active Member
I dont. When I say "Gravity are little invisible goblins shooting harpoons with a string attached at every object and pulling it towards themselves exactly at the rates our data suggests" than this isnt a good theory. its bullcrap without any evidence supporting it.

Sorry, my sarcasm doesn't come across well on the internet.
I was just pointing out that although Elizondo doesn't directly come out and say what he believes, he leaves plenty of room for the people who believe in aliens, Skinwalker Ranch and gravity goblins to get behind him whilst also trying to keep a bit of distance for his own image.
I think it is statements like this and his flexible definition of theory that show this most clearly.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
question for the guys living in the us, is this topic really becoming as big as it feels or is this a flawed perception because I / we have an interest in it and are actively looking for information and news about it?
A small number of medium-high-up people think it's big. But even people like Rubio have vastly more important matters to consider. The media is just largely confused.
 

LilWabbit

Active Member
But Sam Harris would be? Assuming Lue IS part of the team preparing this report, it may be legitimate that Harris has been contacted by the someone ( the government ? ) as he has stated recently, and will be included on a zoom call with "Former Heads of the CIA and the Office of Naval research".

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhxtgx1LiIU

Sounds like the usual suspects (Elizondo, Mellon, maybe even the not-so-usual-suspecty but alien-sympathetic Brennan). Sam Harris seems to be perpetrating the lay error of mistaking these opinionated gentlemen for official US. Government (CIA and DoD) reps. At the time Harris was approached, Elizondo et al may have been actively involved in the Pentagon report, going all-out with the alien hypothesis, only to be later reined in by the Pentagon "proper". These self-same dynamics probably got him "resigned" from the Pentagon in the first place.

The closed door congressional briefing on the report that was going to be earth-shattering according to Harris in the Harris/Gervais podcast, happened some ten days later, and proved unremarkable. Luis Elizondo was disappointed and is now expecting a "watered down" report.

Much ado about nothing.
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Comments from Marco Rubio, yesterday, Jun 21, 2021
https://otter.ai/u/V-ZhIPJoJG6pQ50r5YsJurV1u3k
 

LilWabbit

Active Member
Comments from Marco Rubio, yesterday, Jun 21, 2021
https://otter.ai/u/V-ZhIPJoJG6pQ50r5YsJurV1u3k

It seems Rubio and perhaps other Members of Congress were briefed by the Pentagon on standard criteria of classification during the congressional hearing.

Put formalistically:

The legal justification for all military classification is to preserve or gain a military advantage over the adversary. This applies to:

(1) Classification of information revealing a secret US program or capability (publicly denied or obfuscated by the Pentagon even if such a capability would feature in any of the UAP evidence)

(2) Classification of information featuring non-US assets while revealing secret US intelligence-gathering technology or methodology (could also be regarded as a subset of 1)

2.1 Classification of information which reveals what kind of sensitive information the military is able to gather and how (secret intelligence-gathering, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities)

2.2 Classification of information which reveals the current limitations of ISR (which Rubio failed to mention, perhaps the Congress wasn't briefed on this criterion of classification)


In terms of the upcoming UAP report, 2.1 and 2.2 likely account for most of the incidents included in the classified annex. In other words, they are effectively "identified", but not publicized.

The unclassified portion of the report is likely to comment on the leaked footage along general lines whilst not offering detailed explanations, nor referring to them as "leaks" (an embarrassment). The (leaked) unclassified UAP evidence is sufficiently (a) non-revealing or (b) mundane, in terms of both 1 and 2, to be deemed unclassified. For the Pentagon to offer higher quality evidence on the same incidents, satisfying both believers' or skeptics' curiosity, would risk disclosure of classified information of both types 1 and 2.

For the Pentagon to offer a straightforward answer that the (leaked) unclassified footage features drones, planes or balloons in an optically deceptive manner is unlikely. To do so would be to publicly undermine the (poor) work done by the AATIP/UAPTF under its own wing. Pentagon does not shoot itself in the foot. The unclassified portion of the report is therefore likely to be a broad summary of the conclusions of AATIP/UAPTF whilst dialling down on the wildest hypotheses.

Pentagon is responding only due to leaks and the consequent public/congressional pressure. It will not say anything more than necessary and would rather this circus had never taken place. And hence the public will remain largely unimpressed.
 
Last edited:
Sounds like the usual suspects (Elizondo, Mellon, maybe even the not-so-usual-suspecty but alien-sympathetic Brennan). Sam Harris seems to be perpetrating the lay error of mistaking these opinionated gentlemen for official US. Government (CIA and DoD) reps. At the time Harris was approached, Elizondo et al may have been actively involved in the Pentagon report, going all-out with the alien hypothesis, only to be later reined in by the Pentagon "proper". These self-same dynamics probably got him "resigned" from the Pentagon in the first place.

The closed door congressional briefing on the report that was going to be earth-shattering according to Harris in the Harris/Gervais podcast, happened some ten days later, and proved unremarkable. Luis Elizondo was disappointed and is now expecting a "watered down" report.

Much ado about nothing.

Elizondo stated when asked if it was him or Mellon who spoke to Harris that neither he or Mellon knew who he was. A bit odd considering the fuss over it on twitter. But something to note. Source: https://youtu.be/0fwZY6aJIyM?t=4069
 

Alphadunk

Active Member
There actually isn't a hard deadline for reports like this, despite them having an expected date. It's very common for them to be delayed.
 

Alphadunk

Active Member
While most people here will focus on the prosaic implications mentioned in the report they've also managed to leave the door open for some pretty weird stuff.

The UAPTF holds a small amount of data that appear to show UAP demonstrating acceleration or a degree of signature management. Additional rigorous analysis are necessary by multiple teams or groups of technical experts to determine the nature and validity of these data. We are conducting further analysis to determine if breakthrough technologies were demonstrated.

and

Although most of the UAP described in our dataset probably remain unidentified due to limited data or challenges to collection processing or analysis, we may require additional scientific knowledge to successfully collect on, analyze and characterize some of them. We would group such objects in this category pending scientific advances that allowed us to better understand them. The UAPTF intends to focus additional analysis on the small number of cases where a UAP appeared to display unusual flight characteristics or signature management.
 

gtoffo

Active Member
While most people here will focus on the prosaic implications mentioned in the report they've also managed to leave the door open for some pretty weird stuff.
I mean..... wow.....

This will change significantly the global discourse regarding the subject.
 

folly4

Member
@Alphadunk

I think you'd need to be extremely charitable to read the small blurbs you've pointed out as anything significant. The language is full of qualifiers, and it says they'll need "additional rigorous analysis" to even determine if it's "valid." (e.g. any incredible movement might just be anomalous errors in sensors)

"small amount of data/cases"

"appear/appeared"

"degree"

If I were a diehard UFO believer, I'd feel very misled by all the hype leading up to this right now.


The UAPTF holds a small amount of data that appear to show UAP demonstrating acceleration or a degree of signature management. Additional rigorous analysis are necessary by multiple teams or groups of technical experts to determine the nature and validity of these data. We are conducting further analysis to determine if breakthrough technologies were demonstrated.

Although most of the UAP described in our dataset probably remain unidentified due to limited data or challenges to collection processing or analysis, we may require additional scientific knowledge to successfully collect on, analyze and characterize some of them. We would group such objects in this category pending scientific advances that allowed us to better understand them. The UAPTF intends to focus additional analysis on the small number of cases where a UAP appeared to display unusual flight characteristics or signature management.
 

jarlrmai

Senior Member
It reads to me like this

"There was never any real deep analysis of some of this stuff, now everyone is asking about it so can we have some money/scientists/engineers who know what they are doing for the small amount of cases of less immediately explicable stuff"
 

Max Phalange

Active Member
It reads to me like this

"There was never any real deep analysis of this stuff, now everyone is asking about it so can we have some money/scientists/engineers who know what they are doing for the small amount of cases of less immediately explicable stuff"
"... and please can they be Hal Putoff, Eric Davis and their cronies"
 

Akton

Member
It reads to me like this

"There was never any real deep analysis of some of this stuff, now everyone is asking about it so can we have some money/scientists/engineers who know what they are doing for the small amount of cases of less immediately explicable stuff"

This smells to me again like the Chilean UFO where those supposedly in institutional authority dithered about and did not put the same level of work into analysis as interested amateurs. People shouldn't be so surprised that this happens.
 

Synov

New Member
I can easily see this situation devolving into a Qanon-esque debacle where the UFO enthusiast community's suspense is perpetually sustained on tidbits of ambiguous information like this report, fed to them by hucksters. Elizondo seems poised to play disclosure prophet as a career and the community is already in a cult-like state. Alternate reality, here we come.
 

jarlrmai

Senior Member
"... and please can they be Hal Putoff, Eric Davis and their cronies"

This smells to me again like the Chilean UFO where those supposedly in institutional authority dithered about and did not put the same level of work into analysis as interested amateurs. People shouldn't be so surprised that this happens.

Given Bigelow kickstarted the whole thing it was never setup to succeed at rational analysis. Probably more to generate UFO videos with the US Gov "seal of approval."

It seems pretty clear they have never been rigorously investigated, so anyone claiming the "worlds largest military has put all its resources into this and has no idea" is seemingly mistaken. Those resources have not been made available or applied to this.

"The UAPTF intends to focus additional analysis"
"Additional rigorous analysis are necessary by multiple teams or groups of technical experts to determine the nature and validity of these data."
"limited data or challenges to collection processing or analysis."

So either they kicked out the UFO people a little while ago and have tried to do some actual analysis but don't have the budget, access (no co-operation with other sections) and personnel to produce something for the harder cases. Or there'll be some new contracts for someone's company employing some familiar names.
 
Last edited:

Scaramanga

Member
I'm glad the Congress UAP report raises the most important ( and often overlooked ) issue of all :-

"There are probably multiple types of UAP requiring different explanations based on the range of appearances and behaviors described in the available reporting."

This is just another way of saying that UFOs cover such a broad scope that there's no real indication that different observers are even seeing the same phenomenon. A great many mysteries only exist because a whole range of disparate things get lumped together, and it is only that wide range that sustains the 'phenomenon' at all.
 

Peter

Active Member
Well that's a bit of a dud. A few pages of abstract descriptions of.. what? They could've sufficed with 'We saw some stuff that we couldn't readily identify a few times'.
 

jackfrostvc

Active Member
A rather specific thing that has been a point of discussion here, that I have raised along with others, was noted in the report.
Interesting

1624662759433.png
 
Last edited:

Scaramanga

Member
Given Bigelow kickstarted the whole thing it was never setup to succeed at rational analysis. Probably more to generate UFO videos with the US Gov "seal of approval."

It seems pretty clear they have never been rigorously investigated, so anyone claiming the "worlds largest military has put all its resources into this and has no idea" is seemingly mistaken. Those resources have not been made available or applied to this.

"The UAPTF intends to focus additional analysis"
"Additional rigorous analysis are necessary by multiple teams or groups of technical experts to determine the nature and validity of these data."
"limited data or challenges to collection processing or analysis."

So either they kicked out the UFO people a little while ago and have tried to do some actual analysis but don't have the budget, access (no co-operation with other sections) and personnel to produce something for the harder cases. Or there'll be some new contracts for someone's company employing some familiar names.
They've had 74 years ( since Kenneth Arnold ) to do additional analysis. It took 8 years from Kennedy's speech to land a man on the Moon. It took 3 years for the Manhattan Project to build the atomic bomb. Seventy four years of being unable to say what a phenomenon is does rather suggest there is no genuine phenomenon.
 

LilWabbit

Active Member
As has been already shared earlier in the thread, the report is now officially out for public review. Even a quick analysis leads to the following 6 conclusions:

(1) Only 21 out of 144 UAP reports collected throughout 2004-2021 are interesting even for the UAPTF in terms of the apparently unusual flight characteristics they feature. These 21 reports concern 18 incidents.

(2) The report concerns solely data submitted to the AATIP/UAPTF through its own reporting mechanisms. What the DoD in toto knows, doesn't know or internally reports about these incidents, cannot be inferred from the report.

(3) The UAPTF continues to be a tiny and somewhat lonely entity, lacking both in human resources and access to classified material. It is especially telling that, while an entity 'technically' under the DoD, the UAPTF tacitly admits not knowing about DoD's own secret programs.

"USG or Industry Developmental Programs: Some UAP observations could be attributable to developments and classified programs by U.S. entities. We were unable to confirm, however, that these systems accounted for any of the UAP reports we collected."

(4) The UAPTF, as it currently stands under Brennan McKernan, has dialled down on ufology, seems more level-headed, and has pored over Mick's analysis.

"In a limited number of incidents, UAP reportedly appeared to exhibit unusual flight characteristics. These observations could be the result of sensor errors, spoofing, or observer misperception and require additional rigorous analysis."

(5) The UAP incidents investigated by the UAPTF are not a priority national security concern for the DoD.

(6) The UAPTF is not the go-to source of intelligence on unidentified phenomena for the various DoD service branches. Intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) remain largely de-centralized, specialized by service branch and operation, and priority concerns for the DoD.
 
Last edited:

Domzh

Active Member
ECADB7E9-B02D-4D7F-BFE3-3FCAD35C677A.jpeg

here we go, elizondo pushing his ET narrative pretty obvious right now.

its interesting how absolutely different one can perceive a piece of information based on his own bias / believe system

if i didnt knew that elizondo was "employed" by biggelow it would big time puzzle me how someone with a clear lack of critical thinking could officially put in charge of a serious UAP investigation program.
 

DebunkMee

New Member
"In a limited number of incidents, UAP reportedly appeared to exhibit unusual flight characteristics. These observations could be the result of sensor errors, spoofing, or observer misperception and require additional rigorous analysis."


This to me is the most interesting part of the entire report, and the various interpretations one could draw from it largely determines how likely this is to be something beyond the mundane.

Interpretation 1: The quality/amount of evidence regarding these encounters is so lacking that the explanations listed are considered likely.
Interpretation 2: The evidence does give strong support for real objects having unusual flight characteristics, but they want to secure a higher confidence level before stating it.
Interpretation 3: The task force does not have the resources and/or qualifications to even evaluate the evidence in order to make a prima facie assessment.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
The report does not mention extraterrestrials. The reason seems obvious:
Translation: " If you say you've seen a UFO, you're going to look like a nut case."
Translation: "None of our evidence so far is solid enough to prove that we're actually looking at an unknown technology."
I'd like some background on this. My assumption would be that safety hazards are more likely to be reported than UAP that are not hazards, precisely because safety hazards are more important than mere unidentified sightings.

What exactly are these challenges? 121 incidents written on note cards fit comfortably on a blackboard.
Translation: "We didn't really see a lot of patterns in our data."
Translation: "We wanted to use computer magic to help us find patterns, but the "big data" analysts told us we are a "small data" outfit." The cynical take on this is "we were trying to waste tax dollars on artificial intelligence, but even the artificial intelligence guys refused to take our money."
Translation: "Our plan is to feed all radar data we can get our hands on into one big artificial intelligence." Cynical take: "That'll generate a huge number of additional unexplained phenomena that we can then investigate. Job security achieved!"

* the data they have is useless
* they want more data
* which I expect will also be useless, but allow them to spend more money
 

Ravi

Active Member
It reads to me like this

"There was never any real deep analysis of some of this stuff, now everyone is asking about it so can we have some money/scientists/engineers who know what they are doing for the small amount of cases of less immediately explicable stuff"

"We need a lot of money now to research the UAPs, but we will never tell you where we allocate the money to. We promise to use it wisely"...
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Re...ry-john-kirby-on-unidentified-aerial-phenome/
This all seems quite reasonable.
 

famking

New Member
ECADB7E9-B02D-4D7F-BFE3-3FCAD35C677A.jpeg

here we go, elizondo pushing his ET narrative pretty obvious right now.

its interesting how absolutely different one can perceive a piece of information based on his own bias / believe system

if i didnt knew that elizondo was "employed" by biggelow it would big time puzzle me how someone with a clear lack of critical thinking could officially put in charge of a serious UAP investigation program.

Maybe its his job. Spreading this Alien topic. As part of an disformation campaing.
 

jackfrostvc

Active Member
ECADB7E9-B02D-4D7F-BFE3-3FCAD35C677A.jpeg

here we go, elizondo pushing his ET narrative pretty obvious right now.

its interesting how absolutely different one can perceive a piece of information based on his own bias / believe system

if i didnt knew that elizondo was "employed" by biggelow it would big time puzzle me how someone with a clear lack of critical thinking could officially put in charge of a serious UAP investigation program.


Meanwhile , the report actually says.
Unable to confirm, does not mean wasn't

1624694637882.png
 
Last edited:

Mendel

Senior Member.
Looking back at the first newspaper report and the conclusions drawn:
If indeed the report determines that "a vast majority" of the 120+ UAP incidents witnessed by military (mostly Navy) personnel did not originate from advanced US government technology, then it is in fact tacitly acknowledging that at least some of them did ("a small minority"?).
No such acknowledgment.
And I don't think the report even says that a "vast majority" are non-UGS -- they simply don't know.
The phraseology "does not hold up in all cases" would suggest that the weather and research balloon hypothesis holds up in many or even most cases. Yet some cases continue to puzzle the investigators.
One case.
It "held up" in one case, but could not be ruled out in many others.
If "some of the aerial phenomena" are believed to be experimental Chinese or Russian technology, then it stands to reason that the rival nation technology hypothesis also holds water in some cases.
Again, not in the report. All the report says it that the possibility is there, but the evidence to support it is not.

tl;dr be cautious when drawing conclusions from newspaper reports; go to the original source instead.
 

jackfrostvc

Active Member
Also, if it was US secret technology. There is no way in the world they are going to confirm that to the UAPTF
Classified/Secret with an added need to know means exactly that
They wouldn't even tell most brass about the SR-71 or stealth bomber

And let's not forget when Harry Reid, a senator, applied for clearance to go and see what was happening at Lockheed Martin and....... it was denied
 
Last edited:
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
A Timeline of Porter Goss 9/11 clip - After the Pentagon Attack 9/11 4
S Needs debunking: Pentagon plane could have been shot down 9/11 10
D 2018 Pentagon Triangle Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 5
LarryLobster Off-Camera Pentagon Press Briefing comment on UAPs as Aliens: UFOs and Aliens 2
bird_up "Gimbal UFO video rendered in 3D" by Abominati0n UFOs and Aliens 5
Mick West The Evolution of Official DoD/Pentagon Statements Regarding The Navy UFO Videos and UAP Investigations UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 6
TEEJ Pentagon to launch task force to investigate UFO sightings - August 14, 2020 CNN Article UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 28
Mick West Debunked: Pentagon has Evidence of "Off-World Vehicles Not Made on this Earth" UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 14
Agent K Air Force E-11A Communications Aircraft Crashes And Burns In Afghanistan Current Events 7
Mick West Inexperienced Pilot Recreating 9/11 Flight 77's Descending Turn into the Pentagon 9/11 77
ZoomBubba Las Vegas Massacre - Surveillance Footage? Conspiracy Theories 115
inkwell American Airlines Flight 77 Aircraft Accident Package lists no. of Passengers/Fatalies as "Unknown" Conspiracy Theories 3
Mick West Debunked: "FBI releases 27 classified photos of 9/11 Pentagon attacks" [Not New] 9/11 8
izz Does this photo show a too-small hole in the Pentagon? [No] 9/11 28
USAFMXOfficer 9/11 - Pentagon 86 CCTV videos 9/11 6
TWCobra AA77-Pentagon explosion plume compared to known aircraft fires 9/11 0
Critical Thinker foreignpolicy.com: The Pentagon Has a Plan to Stop the Zombie Apocalypse. Seriously. General Discussion 4
Mick West Debunked: $8.5 Trillion Missing from the Pentagon Conspiracy Theories 19
T Fake 9/11 footage of cruise missile hitting pentagon 9/11 15
hiper lack of a Pentagon boeing video 9/11 117
BombDr Did the Pentagon have air defenses on 9/11? 9/11 20
Eric A. Eisenbise The Pentagon is The key to 911 9/11 26
Oxymoron 9/11 - Did flight AA77 Hit The Pentagon? 9/11 147
Mick West Debunked: FunVax, Pentagon Briefing on Removing the God Gene [Hoax] HAARP 57
Mick West Debunked: Rumsfeld says $2.3 Trillion missing from the Pentagon Quotes Debunked 52
A Triangle UFO over Shanghai, June 2021 UFOs and Aliens 27
LorentzHall 12 June 2021 UFO Over Lake Michigan Chicago (Short Clip) Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 24
DasKleineTeilchen 2,400 "new" unseen 9/11 photos found at estate sale, june 2019 9/11 12
Mick West A Rippled Distrail Near Las Vegas June 17 2016 Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 5
Trailblazer Explained: Contrail Cross in Florida, June 2 2016 Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 1
Chew Yosemite Contrail Grid 17 June 2015 Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 16
TWCobra Max Bliss "3 chemtrails" Video. 20th June 2014 Contrails and Chemtrails 3
MikeC International day of action June 30? Contrails and Chemtrails 0
Oystein Debunking resource: Engineers Assess the Truth in AE911Truth (Scott & Hamburger, 2021) 9/11 36
LorentzHall White Flying Object Over US Navy base in Japan (July 2021) Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 14
A Explained: UFO Filmed from a Helicopter in Kamchatka, Russia. May 31, 2021 [Fake] UFOs and Aliens 2
flarkey Cigar Shaped UFO - March 23, 2021 Captured by commercial airline pilots Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 6
R Worldwide Eratosthenes stick experiment, May 14, 15, 16 2021 Flat Earth 14
TEEJ Debunked: Claim that Joe Biden's hand passes through microphone during White House press gaggle, 16th March 2021 Election 2020 8
TEEJ Richard Citizen Journalist proves that Biden Rose Garden address was a live event at the White House, 12th March 2021 Election 2020 15
I Thylacines in Tasmania (New photos from 1st March 2021) General Discussion 44
Mick West Three Contrails "Descending" over Denver on Jan 31, 2021 [Military, C-17A Globemasters] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 1
Mick West "Advanced Aerial Threats" In Report on US Congress' Intelligence Authorization Act For Fiscal Year 2021 UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 4
Related Articles











































Related Articles

Top